Commit Graph

11 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Richard Smith c5f98f343b [class.copy]p23: Fix an assertion caused by incorrect argument numbering in a
diagnostic, add a test for this paragraph, and tighten up the diagnostic wording
a little.

llvm-svn: 155784
2012-04-29 06:32:34 +00:00
Richard Smith 6f1e2c6d19 Finish PR10217: Ensure we say that a special member was implicitly, not
explicitly, deleted in all relevant cases, and explain why.

llvm-svn: 153894
2012-04-02 20:59:25 +00:00
Richard Smith 852265ff1c PR10217: Provide diagnostics explaining why an implicitly-deleted special
member function is deleted.

llvm-svn: 153773
2012-03-30 20:53:28 +00:00
Richard Smith 619ecdc80f Ensure that we delete default constructors in the right cases. Don't delete the
default constructor of a union if it has a const member with no user-provided
default constructor.

llvm-svn: 151516
2012-02-27 06:07:25 +00:00
Richard Smith 0d1f3cb1b5 Special members which are defaulted or deleted on their first declaration are
trivial if the implicit declaration would be. Don't forget to set the Trivial
flag on the special member as well as on the class. It doesn't seem ideal that
we have two separate mechanisms for storing this information, but this patch
does not attempt to address that.

This leaves us in an interesting position where the has_trivial_X trait for a
class says 'yes' for a deleted but trivial X, but is_trivially_Xable says 'no'.
This seems to be what the standard requires.

llvm-svn: 151465
2012-02-26 00:31:33 +00:00
Douglas Gregor 74f7d50f6a When overload resolution picks an implicitly-deleted special member
function, provide a specialized diagnostic that indicates the kind of
special member function (default constructor, copy assignment
operator, etc.) and that it was implicitly deleted. Add a hook where
we can provide more detailed information later.

llvm-svn: 150611
2012-02-15 19:33:52 +00:00
Eli Friedman 4134073c4b Compute whether a class is trivial correctly for template classes with an explicitly deleted or defaulted special member. PR11387.
llvm-svn: 144715
2011-11-15 22:39:08 +00:00
Douglas Gregor 5d1b4e3d1f When we notice that a member function is defined with "= delete" or "=
default", make a note of which is used when creating the
initial declaration. Previously, we would wait until later to handle
default/delete as a definition, but this is too late: when adding the
declaration, we already treated the declaration as "user-provided"
when in fact it was merely "user-declared".

Fixes PR10861 and PR10442, along with a bunch of FIXMEs.

llvm-svn: 144011
2011-11-07 20:56:01 +00:00
Richard Smith 9ca5c42582 Update all tests other than Driver/std.cpp to use -std=c++11 rather than
-std=c++0x. Patch by Ahmed Charles!

llvm-svn: 141900
2011-10-13 22:29:44 +00:00
Alexis Hunt d6da876bac Begin work consolidating ShouldDelete* functions.
Begin with just default constructors. One note is that as a side effect
of this, a conformance test was removed on the basis that this is almost
certainly a defect as with most of union initialization. As it is, clang
does not implement union initialization close to the standard as it's
quite broken as written. I hope to write a paper addressing the issues
eventually.

llvm-svn: 141528
2011-10-10 06:18:57 +00:00
Richard Smith 938f40b5aa Implement support for C++11 in-class initialization of non-static data members.
llvm-svn: 132878
2011-06-11 17:19:42 +00:00